Let me just say that this 'discussion' that has developed is both healthy and indicitive of some underlying problem. First, it's healthy because this is what scientists do. One group publishes contraversial data and their competitors jump all over it with a Comment, usually in the same journal issue. In this case, however, the problem I see is that the 'discussion' is somewhat personal and not all that civil (note the use of "scare quotes" and overtly emotional language such as militantly pro-Darwin). The reason behind this, I think, are the religious implications of the Discovery Institutes' theories. The only thing more volitol than religion and science is religion and politics.

Anyway. Here are three things I plan to read (in this order) when I have the time: